These people will give students psychological hints in some links, such as "go crazy first if you want to succeed, and don't rush forward." This kind of eloquence training, which only gives uneven chicken soup, can not bring qualitative change to the students. Because the biggest problem with this kind of training is that it only tells you what is important, not how to do it.
Another kind of oral training is that the lecturers are mostly the hosts of traditional media. They will tell you to add some short stories to attract the attention of the audience during the speech, or praise the audience more during the speech. Correspondingly, some people will vomit: "wasting time is actually telling stories around' boasting', and I don't know where to collect so many short stories." Praise, express gratitude, refuse, etc. These are all the art of lip service. Besides, there is no practical content here except flattering skills. Not recommended. "
Nowadays, the audience is paying more and more attention to practicality. I hope that these trainings can establish a thinking framework about expression and can be used directly. Most people's expressive ability has room for improvement. Can we find a general expression framework from the existing problems? Formal expression generally has two forms: language and writing.
The output of language form is called "speech"; Output in written form is called "writing". Although there are some differences in output between the two expressions, there are many similarities at the frame level. For example, both should highlight key points and emphasize clear logic; In addition to rational thinking, it emphasizes emotional harmony with users.